fw 190a5 flight model

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Gaston

As for the challenge I was issued by Glider, the ratio of P-47s out-turning Me-109s vs the opposite is pretty telling: I am sure Glider will have great trouble matching even one tenth of the P-47/109 outcomes I presented above...

Or one third for the dive and zooms vs multiple consecutive 360s examples...

So much for a great theoretical advantage...

So much for apples to apples comparisons.

I also wanted to adress the claim of violation of physical laws:

Imagine a situation where you have in each hand a pulley system that multiplies your pulling force by 100.

Imagine each system is connected to opposite extremities of a steel bar: Leaning back you pull say 50 lbs in each hand: 5000 lbs of pulling force at the other end of each pulley system.

If you alternately vary the force in each hand, would the steel bar offer any resistance to your moving it back and forth? Does no perceptible resistance mean the steel bar is not being pulled apart by 10 000 lbs of force?

This is what is called a violation of physical laws here...

It's what's called an ignorance of the physical laws violating itself.

Look up 'inertia' and tensile strength.

My claim is that two large forces cancel each other out: One force is the resistance of the propeller to a curving trajectory, which I figure is around 100 lbs for each degree of angle of attack -hardly an outlandish figure...

Gee, it must be accurate then? About as accurate as the never yet supported claim of props resisting realistic curved trajectories. But at least you left out the "stress risers" "explanation".

Just because you can make claims based on you-think-so-it-must-be doesn't make them real. Just because you can tack off-hand numbers on them doesn't make them any more real. BTW, last time the numbers were on an order of magnitude higher than now.
Sorry but you have no ballpark to say the numbers are in so why bother?

The other force is a deformation of the void above the wing, which is linked to the above: This force has to be proportionately much greater because of a very unfavourable leverage relationship to the nose, where the prop is.

Again, something you made up.

So the deformation of the void above the wing is the equivalent of having a much larger "pulley force multiplier" within the wing, faced at the other end by a much longer "lever" in the nose, both cancelling each other out proportionately as the AoA increases.

In the world of imagination, there are flying unicorns in different colors too.

I won't bother with the rest as it is just as unfounded.

Even before WWII they built planes, propped them up under the wings and pulled the fuselage down with hydraulic rams to test the structure in fact, not imagination. With you, it's all imagination 'backed' by psuedo-related, incomplete 'data' gleaned from cherry picked combat reports, ie useless information for determining flight comparisons.